Give the backup approver a decision they can actually make

The marketing lead is away for six working days. Her out-of-office message names a deputy, and the agent-prepared work keeps arriving. The deputy can see the queue but does not know whether she may approve a changed offer, a new audience or only a draft that follows the existing brief.

Temporary approval coverage should specify the decisions a substitute may make, the period covered and the route for everything else. Forwarding notifications is only a delivery change. Useful coverage requires authority, context, access and time to review the work. If one is missing, the queue has moved without the decision becoming possible.

Delegate decisions within a dated boundary

Begin with the approvals likely to arrive during the absence. Use the actual work, including cases already pending, rather than a generic statement that the deputy will cover marketing. Separate work governed by an accepted standard from work that would change that standard.

For each class, state what the substitute may decide and which evidence must accompany the request. Then state what remains outside the delegation. A deputy who may approve message wording within a current campaign should not have to infer whether that includes a new product promise. Nor should an ordinary edit wait for an executive merely because the normal reviewer is away.

Set a start and an end for the arrangement. Specify what happens if the person returns early or the absence extends. The original owner should not assume a delegation expired merely because their calendar changed; the workflow operator and the substitute need the same effective dates.

A six-day absence exposes three different decisions

In this fictional example, a marketing lead expects prepared follow-up drafts, occasional offer changes and several unresolved account matches. Her deputy already reviews campaign content, but does not own commercial terms or account identity policy.

The deputy accepts the first responsibility after reviewing two representative items. The executive accepts the offer-change route and the expected response window. Nobody receives authority to bypass the identity hold. This is a temporary assignment of existing decisions, not a relaxation of the standards those decisions enforce.

One pending draft illustrates the boundary. It uses approved language but refers to an account whose owner recently changed. The deputy can judge the wording, yet the release still waits for the relationship question. Being an authorized copy reviewer does not make her the accountable owner for every condition attached to the work.

Check access and capacity before the first morning

Business authority and application access need separate checks. A person can be authorized to approve a decision while lacking access to its supporting evidence. A person can also possess broad application permissions without authority to make that business choice. Resolve both before declaring coverage ready.

Have the substitute open a representative request, find the relevant context and explain the decision back to the normal owner. Include one ordinary item and one exception. This small rehearsal often reveals an unstated assumption: the lead normally remembers a customer conversation, knows which claim was rejected or checks a second source nobody included in the request.

Ask what work the substitute will postpone to make room. Covering a second queue is a real commitment. If it will not fit, reduce discretionary intake, appoint another qualified reviewer or accept a longer response window for work that can wait. A backup named on paper should not conceal an impossible workload.

Choose the fallback before it is needed

The substitute may also become unavailable, or a request may exceed the delegation. Define who receives that exception and what should happen while it waits. Some preparation can continue without approval. A consequential action that still requires a decision should remain pending.

Waiting time should trigger visibility, not implied consent. An unanswered request does not become approved because the usual reviewer is on leave. If a customer commitment is approaching, the fallback owner can choose a different supported response or reset the expectation through the relationship owner. The operator should not invent that trade-off.

Close the temporary arrangement deliberately

When the lead returns, reconcile three sets of work: decisions completed by the substitute, items still waiting and exceptions that changed the plan. Avoid replaying completed reviews simply because the normal reviewer is back. Equally, avoid leaving difficult items in a temporary queue whose owner thinks the assignment has ended.

Confirm any access adjustments through the appropriate administrator and preserve the decision history. If the absence revealed that a deputy can routinely handle a class of work, propose that as a separate permanent change. A successful six-day arrangement should not silently rewrite the long-term approval model.

RevTech’s governance description distinguishes explicit role permissions from customers’ business rules and approval expectations. Confirm the available configuration with the operator; the dated delegation described here is an operating practice, not a claim that RevTech automatically transfers or expires approval authority.

Before the next planned absence, rehearse one real approval with its substitute. The test is simple: can that person reach a supported decision, inside their authority, without contacting the colleague who is supposed to be away?

Sources and scope

Original temporary-coverage method and fictional scenario. RevTech’s Audit and Governance page was checked November 6, 2026. Existing approval-threshold and RACI guidance supplies the broader ownership context. This article does not prescribe employment authority or change an organization’s permission policy.